Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

Tor Bjarne Olsen — where does your information come from, that Priam not only existed, but was a Roman gladiator?

You have also now said that there are contemporary histories of Troy. Do you mean histories written at the time of Troy? If so, which one? (There are several layers to the Troy excavation; the level that the Homeric poem refers to is Troy VIIa, scholars think, it being the level that was destroyed by war rather than earthquake.)

Some of it comes from Diodorus Sicilus who wrote Bibliotheca Historica wich was a Collection of 40 books.

When you say "some," which parts do you mean? (His history, of course, would not be one contemporary with the Troy we are talking about.)

I'm really not following you. Yes, Gregory is a secondary source - just the earliest we have. No one disagrees with that. Are you suggesting we discount it and remove this part of the tree?

no that is not what I said, you always talk about primary sorces but you yourself refer always to Gregory as the true Source and is a wrong thing to do, I do not think that all the People who could be interested in the primary Source to make Research on their own, As I said he used much of the work from Sulpicius Alexander, and when never mation him you do not give anyone the possibility to search on their own and ask questions about findings and claims about this time and People.
Regarding Troy, it is documents back to 600 BC, so it exist.

Tor Bjarne Olsen -- what documents back to 600 BC?

And where are the works of Sulpicius Alexander?

Among others the Alexandu treaty 1280 BC, Tawagawala letter 1250 BC.

The work of Sulpicius Alexander as extracts in Gregory's Decem Libri Historiarum (II 9) is considered an important source in any discussion of the origin of the Frankish tribes.
There are more in Ammanianus Marcellinus Res Gestae

So no documents back to 600BC?

And no Sulpicius Alexander outside Gregory of Tours -who you don't believe we should use?

Tor Bjarne Olsen -- you're referring to two Hittite texts, both of which may mention Troy -- or, at least, one of the Troys -- or, at least, they mention things that arguably have to do with one of the Troys -- as far as I know, neither one says that Priam was a Roman gladiator -- where did that information come from?

Neither of the two texts you cite, by the way, is a contemporary history of Troy. They are texts which may be evidence that Troy existed. Which archaeology also tells us. But they aren't histories.

I understand that you don't will understand what I am Saying. I have never said that you should not use Gregory but you Owe the rest of Genis users to give the right information, not give an impession that it is solely Gregorys work. I do not have to give any information about this, I am just informing that there are more documents out there than you say. Regarding the documents back to 600BC, they exist, I only gave you info that there are documents further back than 600 BC, wich are accepted among historians. It is out there this is reasearch.

So, no evidence as to the Priam as Roman gladiator theory?

I do not just say Things With no hold, but I do Wonder about why you (curators) not are more interested in the reasearch for this, than to get it layed out on a plate, then you can say that what you found is real or fake, instead of just saying that there is just one truth, that is what you know about. I know that there is a lot of work but lets face it that is what this is about. I have travelled around Europe to find the ancesters, wich the established fora did not find. I followed their sir name through Europe that is a branch from today til Clovis, it has taken me 15 years and now we just fill in the rest that is Family trough the time.

you keep referring to all of these academically accepted documents dating back thousands of years, but you've yet to display one to prove your point. if you cant demonstrate the "Truth" you purport to have, then it doesn't exist.

and before you claim i don't understand, i get what you're saying. you simply want people to take your snarky word for it.

i wouldn't hold my breath on that (or better yet, go ahead - hold your breath - see if it works)

sjp

This answer shows me the seriosity of some curators, I do not have to prove anything to you, You on the other hand can prove to me and all the others on Geni that you are right, uptil now its just an attempt to get more info from those that you should lead and serve, that is Your job not mine. The proof you have declared so far are just the same a second hand info that you did not even know who wrote, Who should give the proof?
If you as a curator can't do anything else than jump in ( as you did once before) and be everything else than civil in a discussion. Maybe you should hold Your breath and see if it Works.
Regarding displaying documents, you as curators has not displayed anything yet, just claiming the right in Words.

hate to break it to you, but i'm not a curator. in fact i can think of a few i've ticked of with my lack of seriosity. once again, you want people to by what your selling, but won't show a product. i dont care how much you've travelled all over europe researching genealogies, as you said, with out data (i said so does not equal data) your'e a snake oil salesman.

sjp

Can't we decide to put people as real until proven fake ?

After all, people in law are deemed innocent in france until proven guilty, why can't it work for history ?

Or put a huge note that says " there is no sufficient evidence to prove or disprove, so to each their own" sort of message ?

It would be up top people to go up or to not go back up ?

To Stephen, why should I prove anything when the curators don't even know that Gregory of Tours, in fact used work of others in his Works, He used at least four books from Sulpicius Alexander and that do not make Gregory as a main Source but a second Source. So why not admit that instead of saying that it all comes from Gregory, it shows me that there is a lack of researching regarding the Sources the curators are refering to.

To Jessica this is the best suggestion so far in this discussion. Thank you!

then why aren't you producing the corresponding data. you saying doesnt make it true. references or scanned images of text. you keep whinging about lack of research on the curators' part. but i actually havent seen anything from you but self aggrandizing and statements to truth without statements of truth. you could be right, i'm not saying you're incorrect, but you're not giving any actual facts, just hearsay.

and you should prove it because you stated it. period.

drsjp

I just say that if the curators are geneagologists as some of them claim, it is odd to use a secondary Source as a main Source, when it comes to Settipani as another Source:
"He has given particular attention to the possibility of genealogical continuity between families of late antiquity and families of the early mediaeval period, as revealed by shared naming patterns amongst them", "However, a few scholars have expressed concern that Settipani's presentation lacks accessibility, and that the very breadth and volume of the material which he treats in a single work tend to make it more difficult to evaluate his conclusions and their implications for specific historical contexts".
This tells me that he did not substantiate his slaims good enough for all to axept, but yet they use him a true Source.
As you say I just use statement without statement of truth. Ok if you say so, but that is what Settipani also did, so why is those staements true.
You also say that I should prove it because I stated it, would you please send a Message to Settipani and ask for the same.

Jessica Christophe-Dymock Paternal Ydna QM 242 I strongly disagree. We cannot do this on the geni platform. Geni is binary, either / or. It does not work to do otherwise in this software structure.

We have to do the hard work of "most likely" and visit a separated tree, which can always be put in place if further evidence warrants it.

Yes, it's the harder way. It's much easier to live with "could be.". But it's lazy.

And it's the person making the claim to present the evidence. It is not a curator role.

Tor: Put Up Or Shut Up.

We've heard gibbering from people better at it than you, who post Mountains Of Text proving nothing at all - but all you've done is whine and kvetch without producing even a single anthill.

The more you talk, the more you prove that you don't understand what you're talking about - and, occasionally, you slip and let ignorance show ("axept" instead of "accept").

If you think you can get away with parroting Wikipedia as a "valid argument", you are sadly mistaken.

Tor, I think you're guessing about what the sources say just like you're guessing about what curators know.

Yesterday you thought Généalogie Historique had the descent of the Frankish kings from Priam, but it doesn't. Now you're thinking it's in Diodorus Sicilus and the lost work of Sulpicius Alexander. It's not.

I don't know why you think medievalists don't know Gregory of Tours used other sources, or why you think we don't know Gregory is a secondary source for most of his work. You seem to be just making up accusations you think might muddy the argument.

And for that matter, you don't seem to know that a particular work can be both primary and secondary in different places.

Still no citation to primary sources for Priam the Roman gladiator?

Tor, the question of using Settipani is quite interesting. It's probably your best contribution to this discussion so far.

In the early days the curators had the problem of what to do in areas of the tree where there are either competing theories or where the line is strictly unknown but traditional or theoretical versions extend it.

One solution we tried was conforming Geni lines to Settipani. There was always a Settipani version already on Geni, competing with other versions, so it was just a question of using that as the template, and not cutting speculative lines if they were supported by Settipani.

That system really didn't work very well. It seemed like they only way to compromise with people who get upset when they lose illustrious ancient lines (and not get lynched), but it was contrary to the methodology of modern genealogy.

The way we do it now is much better. We look for the majority opinion of contemporary experts.

Just as aside, you say experts use Settipani as a "true Source". No, no, no. You still aren't understanding sources. And actually, you aren't understanding Settipani's methodology either. Let's leave that for another time.

To Maven B Helms. I am not from a an English speeking land, so yes there might be some wrong Words or gramatical false, that is no argumentation in the discussion, 'Cause american do not speak a correct Language either, not even all the English People speaks correctly, this shows what you can do for an argument. The more I talk etc, is just an attempt to make my arrguments look bad. I do not think Your argument makes me belive not to get impressed of Your knowledge rather the opposite.

To Justin: It is good to hear that you admit Things about Gregory, 'cause I have e-mails where you use him as a primary Source. I haven't said anything about Priam when it comes to Diodorus or Sulpicius, I do not know where you got it from.
I just pointed out using their names that there are more documents to read and frankly I do't think you know this books by heart and the time aspect don't give you the time to look it up, further more some of them is not available.
I van tell you this (as you should know), names can be used many times by just adding a number eks: Priam I- Priam IV. there are documents about Priam IV.
When it comes to using primary and secondary Sources it is ok but make it show instead of trying to give an impession that you have a lot of primary Sources, when you don't.

Tor, I call B.S. I've explained to you before that Gregory of Tours is the main source but I haven't said he's a primary source. I think you know that. You're just trying to be provocative.

I read Diodorus Sicilus and Gregory of Tours in grad school, along with many other out of the way sources. I don't know them by heart (why in the world would you think that's important??), but it's easy to remember they didn't have the kind of detailed genealogy you're imagining. And, it's easy enough to do a quick check whenever someone brings up the question.

This! This deserves a separate post. Tor says:

> instead of trying to give an impession that you have a lot of primary Sources, when you don't.

Tor, have you even read the discussion, or are you just looking for snippets where you can bash people you don't like?

This is the whole point, and so far you've been on the OTHER side.

I am saying, and all of the curators are saying, WE DO NOT HAVE PRIMARY SOURCES AND THE SECONDARY SOURCES ARE CRAP. We are not pretending to have primary sources.

You and Ulf are saying that we're all evil because we don't accept the sources that you claim to exist but never actually produce.

Yes Justin in this discussion you have said that but not back in 2014.
I hope you also red the comments made by Maven, Geni is a happy Family, Right.
I do not feel that I've said anything wrong; I have even said thank you for fixing some problems.
I f you feel what i've been saying is a personal attack it is not.
Actually I do not care so much about you don't try to find more Sources or if you do not have time. But to claim that there is no Sources are BS.
I do not feel I do the same as Ulf becouse I am trying to do this Professional, but when People are getting out of line I can answer.
We can end this discussion and you can use Your Sources and I can use mine.

Tor, you wrote above:

> In 2014 i wrote the linage of clovis back to Priam on the Profile of Clovis, This was then told by Justin Swansrom that it was just fictional and none of this People where real,

This seems to be essence of your complaint. In fact it seems that you are still so disturbed by losing your line back to the Greek gods that you're willing to invent sources, invent connections, invent things I've supposedly said, and on and on.

You're basically just trolling.

https://es.scribd.com/document/133253829/Histori-Adela-Leng-01-Ce-Ja